Applications are open to join the next Housing Ombudsman Resident Panel – find out more Housing Ombudsman Resident Panel.

Sage Housing Limited (202331546)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202331546

Sage Housing Limited (SHL)

19 November 2024


Our approach

The Housing Ombudsman’s approach to investigating and determining complaints is to decide what is fair in all the circumstances of the case. This is set out in the Housing Act 1996 and the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme). The Ombudsman considers the evidence and looks to see if there has been any ‘maladministration’, for example, whether the landlord has failed to keep to the law, followed proper procedure, followed good practice, or behaved in a reasonable and competent manner.

Both the resident and the landlord have submitted information to the Ombudsman, and this has been carefully considered. Their accounts of what has happened are summarised below. This report is not an exhaustive description of all the events that have occurred in relation to this case, but an outline of the key issues as a background to the investigation’s findings.

The complaint

  1. The complaint is regarding the landlord’s response to the resident’s request for broken tiles to be replaced under the Defect Liability Period (DLP).

Background and summary of events

Background

  1. The resident is a leaseholder of a shared-ownership property. The landlord is a housing association. The resident has part-owned the property since June 2023. The defect liability period at the property ended on 30 June 2023.

Summary of events

  1. On 6 June 2023, the landlord sent the resident a ‘welcome letter’ following his part-purchase of the property. The letter provided advice regarding how to report any defects in the property. It stated that while “the defects period is typically a year from when the property was handed over (to the landlord)”, as a customer he would have “less time than this” and “in some cases, (customers) may not have any defects period”. It advised it was “important you check your defects liability period and report any defects as soon as you find them”.
  2. The landlord replied to an email from the resident on 25 July 2023 and acknowledged receipt of his defects list. It asked him to confirm whether he was available for an end of defect period (EOD) inspection on 15 August 2023.
  3. On 31 July 2023, the landlord wrote to the resident regarding the EOD and asked him to report any further defects prior to the appointment. It clarified that “only items assessed to be building defects will be considered” for repair. Records show the appointment took place on 15 August 2023 as planned, with the resident’s parents attending in his place. Following the inspection, the landlord identified 4 defects which would be resolved: making good “mastic to bath”; repairing a wash hand basin plug; replacing a window handle; and easing and adjusting internal windows in the lounge.
  4. The resident complained to the landlord on 13 September 2023 as he was unhappy with how he had been treated regarding “broken tiles in (his) new property”. He stated that after reporting 2 broken tiles around his shower, he had been told by the landlord he was “out of warranty”, although he had also been advised to raise the issue during the EOD and “it would be at the discretion of the developer” whether they would be repaired. During the inspection the resident claimed it was agreed that the broken tiles, along with the 4 defects noted above, would be taken care of. However, while the other defects were later completed, the developer advised the tiles were “not their issue”. He considered it “unfair” that he was responsible for replacing the tiles.
  5. On 18 September 2023, the landlord emailed the resident to state it had asked its Defects team to investigate and confirm which defects were reported and see if the developer would make good. The resident chased for an update on 2 October 2023. After further correspondence between 4 and 6 October 2023, the landlord confirmed its position that the tiles had not been raised as an issue during the EOD inspection and it would therefore take no further action. The resident maintained the tiles had been discussed during the inspection and accused the landlord, developer and independent surveyor of a “cover-up”.
  6. Following further correspondence with the resident, the landlord sent a stage 1 complaint response on 31 October 2023. It understood the complaint was about “broken tiles…that have not been addressed”. It noted that, as a resolution to the complaint, the resident wanted “confirmation of how and when” outstanding works would be completed, an apology regarding the delays he had experienced and compensation to recognise the delays and the stress this had caused him. The landlord said it had “reviewed all records relating to…defects” and correspondence between itself, the resident and the developer and clarified it would only be assessing its own actions and whether it had followed its policies and procedures, rather than considering any decisions taken by the developer. It went on to make the following comments and findings:
    1. When the resident first raised concerns about broken tiles in his bathroom, this was outside of the warranty/defect liability period. However, he had been advised to raise the issue during an EOD inspection meeting and that the developer would then consider the matter.
    2. It understood the resident believed the broken tiles had been discussed during this meeting and the developer had “accepted the works and confirmed they (would) attend” to them. It noted he had provided witness statements from family members which he believed confirmed this view.
    3. It clarified that customers received “the remainder of any build warranty” (which was 1 year from the date the landlord bought the property from the developer) and that the resident’s warranty expired on 30 June 2023. It noted that the resident had raised 2 tickets via its online portal regarding defects on 16 June 2023 and these had been attended to.
    4. An EOD inspection had been arranged on 15 August 2023, which was attended by parties including the landlord and the developer, and a list was prepared detailing “all defects noted in the inspection”. It clarified that 4 items were included on the list and the broken tiles were not one of them.
    5. Its records showed it first received a report regarding broken tiles on 24 July 2023, when the resident provided photos and defect report to its Aftercare team. It clarified this was after the end of the defect liability period and the had not been documented by those attending the end of defects inspection.
    6. It noted that the resident had asked for details regarding the specification of the tiles on 30 August 2023 so he could replace them himself. It stated it provided this information on 13 September 2023.
    7. It said, “if an issue is not documented on the end of defect report”, the developer would not class it as a defect as it was not covered under warranty and these repairs would be the responsibility of a shared owner to address. As the landlord had not seen evidence the broken tiles were reported as a defect before 30 June 2023, it did not consider itself or the developer liable and the resident would have to “resolve the issue independently”. It therefore did not uphold the complaint.
  7. The resident responded via email on 13 November 2023 and asked for his complaint to be escalated. Concerns he raised included:
    1. That he considered the landlord had “failed” to book the EOD inspection and would not have done so if he had not chased this in July 2023. He asked for clarification regarding when it should have been carried out.
    2. Having been advised to bring up the broken tiles during the EOD meeting, he did so. However, they were left off the final EOD report. He considered this was either human error or “clear falsification of a legally binding document” and in that case action should be taken against all concerned.
    3. Other repair issues raised during the EOD inspection had been resolved, but the tiles had not. He asked the landlord for an explanation, inferring it was “choosing” which repairs to carry out.
  8. The landlord replied on 4 December 2023. It understood the resident was “under the impression” it had failed to book a defects meeting, but it advised these meetings were “not mandatory”. It reiterated its position regarding the DLP ending 1 year after the handover date and stated customers were “informed of this at the move in stage” and that his welcome pack had clarified he had until “the end of your warranty to raise any defects”. Any issues raised after this time would not “fall within the scope of the developer’s responsibility”. While it had no evidence of receiving reports about the broken tiles before 30 June 2023, it would investigate further if the resident could provide additional evidence. If he did not provide any further information by 22 December 2023, it would close his complaint. 
  9. The landlord contacted the resident again on 18 December 2023 to advise his complaint had been escalated and it aimed to respond within 20 working days. 
  10. On 18 January 2024, the landlord provided its Stage 2 complaint response. It noted the resident remained unhappy that “2 broken tiles…had still not been attended to” and was concerned that, had he not chased the landlord regarding the delayed End of Defect meeting, he did not believe it would have take place. It went on to make the following comments and findings:
    1. It clarified that the End of Defect meeting was “not mandatory” and reiterated that all customers had a 1 year Defect Liability Period (DLP). It had provided information on this within a welcome pack and during the move in stage. The resident’s DLP had ended on 30 July 2023, and it reiterated that “any defects…raised after the DLP date” would be considered the resident’s responsibility “in line with the terms of (his) lease”.
    2. Its records indicated it first received a report regarding broken tiles on 24 July 2023. He had made contact again on 30 August 2023, when he provided photographs of the tiles and asked for “advice on replacing the tiles” himself and whether the landlord or developer had any spares. It also understood he had advised the tiles were “not like this when (he) moved in”. It had confirmed the specification of the tiles on 13 September 2023.
    3. The landlord had spoken with the developer who confirmed the broken tiles had been discussed during the EOD inspection but “there was an agreement that (they) would not be covered under the warranty”. However, it acknowledged this was not noted in the post-inspection report.
    4. In its Stage 1 response, it had advised it could “investigate the matter further” if the resident were able to provide evidence that the defect (broken tiles) had been raised with the landlord prior to 30 June 2023. As part of its complaint investigation, it had asked the resident to provide any further information by 22 December 2023 but to date. While it noted the resident claimed in his escalation request that the people attending the defect inspection had “lied on the…report”, it had spoken to all 3 attendees individually and they had provided a consistent version of events to the contrary. They advised the tiles had been discussed during the meeting but “it was mutually agreed…that the broken tiles would not be covered under the warranty”. The landlord stated that, had an agreement been reached for the developer to resolve the issue, this would have been documented.
    5. The landlord had again asked the developer to “address the issue” as a gesture of goodwill, but they had declined. It would therefore remain the resident’s responsibility to repair or replace any broken tiles. It was satisfied its Stage 1 investigation was “detailed and accurate”, confirmed that the complaint had not been upheld and provided the resident with this Service’s details if he remained unhappy with its position.
  11. In January 2024, the resident referred his complaint to this Service.
  12. On 31 January 2024, in correspondence with the resident regarding a Completion of Works form, the landlord provided further information regarding the EOD inspection appointments and explained that issues raised relating to his bathroom and lounge had been listed on the final defects form and addressed by the developer. It stated that, regarding the tiles, “this was reviewed at the inspection…and deemed not to be a defect”. It clarified that “not all items” raised during the defects process are accepted. 
  13. The resident contacted the Ombudsman in July 2024 to advise he wanted to withdraw his complaint as the issue had now been resolved, as the landlord had agreed to provide replacement tiles and pay for a tiler to replace the tiles in the affected bathroom. On 5 August 2024, he contacted the Ombudsman again to reopen the complaint, as he felt the landlord had only “settled” following contact from this Service. He stated the situation had caused a lot of stress.

Assessment and findings

  1. Under the terms of his lease, the resident is responsible for carrying out repairs within the property. However, as he had purchased a new-build property, there was also a defect liability period, under which certain repairs would be taken care of by the developer, if they were reported within a certain period (usually either 1 or 2 years from the date the property is handed over to the landlord). In this case, evidence shows the property was handed over to the landlord on 30 June 2022 and it had advised that the DLP therefore ended on 30 June 2023.
  2. The resident’s lease began on 7 June 2023, meaning there were 23 days before the end of the DLP. In its complaint responses, the landlord has maintained that the resident did not raise concerns about the broken tiles until 23 July 2023, around 3 weeks after the DLP had run out. This Service has not seen evidence to the contrary. While it is acknowledged the resident only had a brief period in which to log defects before the end of DLP, a welcome letter sent to him by the landlord after completion specifically highlights that this may be the case, or that owners may not benefit from a DLP at all. Therefore, as the repair was not raised before the end of the DLP, while it is acknowledged the resident considers this unfair, under the terms of the landlord’s Defects policy, neither it nor the developer had any obligation to complete the repair.
  3. Having emailed the landlord pictures of the broken tiles, the resident was advised to raise the matter during an upcoming EOD inspection, scheduled for August 2023. He maintains that an agreement was made at this meeting for the tiles to be replaced by the developer, but the repair was not listed on the final inspection report. The landlord’s position is that this was not the case and, as part of its complaint investigation, it stressed it had consulted with the 3 operatives who attended the meeting (on behalf of the landlord, the developer and a surveyor) and they consistently advised that no agreement had been made to replace the tiles, although other repairs, which were also raised after the end of the DLP (i.e. either before or during the inspection) were included on the defects list and were attended to by the landlord.
  4. While the resident’s assertion that the omission of the tiles from the list of defects the developer agreed to address was either a mistake or an untruth is acknowledged, this Service has not seen evidence that any agreement was made to replace the tiles, or that he (or his parents, who attended the EOD inspection in his place) was advised the matter was not his responsibility to resolve. As the Ombudsman was not present at the meeting, it cannot determine what was, or was not, said. We can only consider the information that is available. Based on this, there is no evidence the landlord, or either of the other attendees, reneged on any commitment to replace the tiles.
  5. During its complaint procedure, it was appropriate that the landlord went back to the developer and asked it to consider replacing the tiles as a goodwill gesture. It was unfortunate the developer declined to do so, but this was no fault of the landlord. While the landlord was entitled to take the position that it would not replace the tiles itself as the DLP had expired, its efforts showed it was trying to resolve the matter (and the complaint) through other avenues.
  6. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, the landlord was entitled to decline to replace the tiles as the DLP had expired before the repair was raised. It was also entitled to consider that the broken tiles did not qualify as a defect. This stance, while clearly disappointing and frustrating for the resident, was in line with its stated policies and procedures. It was therefore positive that the landlord later, and after the conclusion of its complaint procedure, did agree to provide replacement tiles and pay for a tiler to replace the tiles in the resident’s bathroom. Although the tiles were not replaced for a year after the resident first raised the issue, the Ombudsman is pleased to note the situation has been resolved and this is not evidence of unreasonable delay as the landlord was ultimately not obliged to replace the tiles.
  7. However, having maintained during its complaint responses, and correspondence during this process, that the tiles were not replaced because they had not been reported prior to the expiry of the DLP, it was confusing that the landlord’s email of 31 January 2024 clearly stated the tiles had “deemed to be a defect” during the EOD inspection. This suggested that there was a different reason for the tiles not being replaced. While the landlord – and developer – would again have been entitled to decline to replace the tiles on this basis, it is of concern that the landlord’s reasoning became contradictory. This would have caused the resident confusion and further frustration.
  8. The Ombudsman has also noted that further confusion would have been caused by some of the landlord’s communication around defects, and the broken tiles specifically. In its complaint responses, the landlord stated the resident was advised his DLP ended on 30 June 2023. However, this Service has not had sight of the welcome pack the landlord referred to, so there is insufficient evidence that this was the case.
  9. Furthermore, on 31 July 2023, a month after the DLP ended, the landlord wrote to the resident regarding the upcoming “Property Inspection Visit” (the EOD inspection) as it was “nearly a year since your home was completed”. The landlord’s letter advised the resident the inspection was booked for 15 August 2023 and that, if he had “issues to raise”, this should be done “prior to the inspection date”. It stressed it was “very important…(to) log…defects now as it is the end of the contractor’s responsibility for defects”.
  10. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, this would have given the resident the impression that any defects raised prior to the meeting would be addressed. It was unhelpful that the landlord, in its complaint responses, rigidly stuck to its position that as the broken tiles had not been reported prior to 30 June 2023, they would not be replaced. If there was another reason why the broken tiles were not accepted as a defect – the letter advised that “snagging issues, normal wear and tear, standard homeowner maintenance items or damage…caused by others” would not be considered to be a defect and its later correspondence of 31 January 2024 suggests it had reached this conclusion during the EOD inspection – this should have been properly recorded and logged, whether on the EOD inspection report or elsewhere.
  11. It was also confusing that the landlord advised the resident there was no issue with the EOD inspection being arranged for 6 weeks after the DLP expired as “it was not mandatory”. Its Defects Policy states that “at the end of the DLP”, its Aftercare team “will contact customers to arrange for an inspection”, which in the Ombudsman’s opinion, is a clear commitment to proactively arrange an inspection in a timely manner. The policy does not give the impression that such an inspection was voluntary on the part of the landlord and/or developer. It was unreasonable that the landlord suggested the inspection was not mandatory and the policy should be less ambiguous regarding whether an inspection will be arranged before or after the expiry of the DLP. This Service will recommend that the landlord reviews the wording used within its Defects Policy and communications regarding the EOD to make clear whether they are mandatory or optional and when they should take place, to reduce confusion for residents and avoid unfairly raising expectations.
  12. For the reasons set out above, the Ombudsman finds there was service failure by the landlord regarding its handling of the resident’s request for broken tiles to be replaced under the Defect Liability Period (DLP). It was entitled to decide that the repair did not fall under the DLP, and it was positive that it ultimately chose to replace the tiles as a goodwill gesture. However, its policy and correspondence regarding the DLP and EOD were at times contradictory and unclear, as were its responses regarding why the tiles were not added addressed as a defect. This caused the resident confusion and frustration. The landlord has therefore been ordered to pay the resident compensation to reflect the distress and inconvenience caused.

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure regarding the landlord’s response to the resident’s request for broken tiles to be replaced under the Defect Liability Period (DLP).

Reasons

  1. The landlord’s original position that the tiles would not be replaced under the DLP was justified and in line with its policies. However, there was later confusion regarding whether the repair was declined because it was not reported in time or that the issue was not considered a defect. There was further confusion caused by the landlord’s correspondence regarding the EOD inspection and the wording of its defects policy.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

  1. The landlord is ordered to, within 4 weeks of the date of this report, pay the resident £125 to reflect its poor handling of his request to replace broken tiles under the defect liability period. 

Recommendations

  1. The landlord should review its Defects policy and its communications regarding End of Defect inspections, to ensure there is clarity regarding when the inspections will take place and whether they are mandatory or optional.